chapter - Pearson

Chapter 1
Organizational Behavior and Management
37
■
level. Workers who could not be trained to this level were
to be transferred to a job in which they were able to reach
the minimum required level of proficiency. 2
Principle 4: Establish a fair or acceptable level of performance
for a task, and then develop a pay system that provides a reward
for performance above the acceptable level.
To encourage workers to perform at a high level of efficiency,
and to provide them with an incentive to reveal the
most efficient techniques for performing a task, Taylor
advocated that workers benefit from any gains in performance.
They should be paid a bonus and receive some
percentage of the performance gains achieved through the
more efficient work process.
By 1910, Taylor’s system of scientific management had
become nationally known and in many instances faithfully and
fully practiced. 3 However, managers in many organizations
chose to implement the new principles of scientific management
selectively. This decision ultimately resulted in problems.
For example, some managers using scientific management
obtained increases in performance, but rather than
sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as
Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of
work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers
experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their
performance increased, managers required them to do more
work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in
performance often meant fewer jobs and a greater threat of
layoffs, because fewer workers were needed. In addition, the
specialized, simplified jobs were often very monotonous and
repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their
jobs.
From a performance perspective, the combination of
the two management practices—achieving the right mix of
worker–task specializations and linking people and tasks by
the speed of the production line—resulted in the huge savings
in cost and huge increases in output that occur in large, organized
work settings. For example, in 1908, managers at the
Franklin Motor Company using scientific management principles
redesigned the work process, and the output of cars
increased from 100 cars a month to 45 cars a day; workers’
wages, however, increased by only 90 percent. 4
Taylor’s work has had an enduring effect on the management
of production systems. Managers in every organization,
whether it produces goods or services, now carefully
analyze the basic tasks that workers must perform and try to
create a work environment that will allow their organizations
to operate most efficiently. We discuss this important issue in
Chapters 6 and 7.
THE WORK OF MARY PARKER FOLLETT
If F. W. Taylor is considered the father of management
thought, Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933) serves as its
mother. 5 Much of her writing about management and the way
managers should behave toward workers was a response to her
concern that Taylor was ignoring the human side of the organiztion.
She pointed out that management often overlooks the
multitude of ways in which employees can contribute to the
organization when managers allow them to participate and
exercise initiative in their everyday work lives. 6 Taylor, for
example, never proposed that managers should involve workers
in analyzing their jobs to identify better ways to perform
tasks, or even ask workers how they felt about their jobs.
Instead, he used time and motion experts to analyze workers’
jobs for them. Follett, in contrast, argued that because workers
know the most about their jobs, they should be involved in
job analysis and managers should allow them to participate in
the work development process.
Follett proposed that “Authority should go with knowledge
. . . whether it is up the line or down.” In other words, if
workers have the relevant knowledge, then workers, rather
than managers, should be in control of the work process itself,
and managers should behave as coaches and facilitators—not
as monitors and supervisors. In making this statement, Follett
anticipated the current interest in self-managed teams and
empowerment. She also recognized the importance of having
managers in different departments communicate directly with
each other to speed decision making. She advocated what she
called “cross-functioning”: members of different departments
working together in cross-departmental teams to accomplish
projects—an approach that is increasingly utilized today. 7 She
proposed that knowledge and expertise, and not managers’
formal authority deriving from their position in the hierarchy,
should decide who would lead at any particular moment. She
believed, as do many management theorists today, that power
is fluid and should flow to the person who can best help the
organization achieve its goals. Follett took a horizontal view
of power and authority, rather than viewing the vertical chain
of command as being most essential to effective management.
Thus, Follett’s approach was very radical for its time.
THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES
AND HUMAN RELATIONS
Probably because of its radical nature, Follett’s work went
unappreciated by managers and researchers until quite
recently. Most continued to follow in the footsteps of Taylor,
and to increase efficiency, they studied ways to improve various
characteristics of the work setting, such as job specialization
or the kinds of tools workers used. One series of studies
was conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Hawthorne Works of
the Western Electric Company. 8 This research, now known as
the Hawthorne studies, was initiated as an attempt to investigate
how characteristics of the work setting—specifically the
level of lighting or illumination—affect worker fatigue and
performance. The researchers conducted an experiment in
which they systematically measured worker productivity at
various levels of illumination.
The experiment produced some unexpected results.
The researchers found that regardless of whether they raised
or lowered the level of illumination, productivity increased. In